Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn Phillips

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It appears notability was asserted, thanks to editors. Note there was a previous AfD under another name; this was also closed as keep. See here. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 14:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Phillips

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Autumn Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would be raising this regardless of her recent separation from her husband. This person does not appear to have any significant notability independent of her husband, who is himself not far above the threshold of notability. He is one of the less prominent grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II, and does not have any royal or noble title. See WP:NOTINHERITED. PatGallacher (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and I would argue WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE as well, as she is not well-known outside of tabloid coverage. BonkHindrance (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Textbook example of WP:NOTINHERITEDTheLongTone (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm puzzled by the references above to WP:NOTINHERITED. That (influential) essay proposes arguments to be avoided in deletion discussions. Most examples given are of "keep" arguments but no one has suggested "keep" here so these examples do not seem to apply. However it also deprecates two "delete" arguments, one of which is "Delete she's only the U.S. President's wife". So, it seems to me that WP:NOTINHERITED suggests that the nomination here is a poor one and does not focus appropriately. I do have some sympathy with the WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE argument, however. Thincat (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree. Seeing WP:NOTINHERITED used as a sole reason (when it's not a guideline) for deletion seems misplaced here, because of the exact example it uses for a wife in that essay. Whisperjanes (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Peter Phillips is 15th in line of succession. Fact that they declined a royal title does not remove their royal lineage nor connection to royalty past or present. This is a question of how far removed from royalty should be considered notable under WP:GNG. I would argue if Peter Phillips is considered notable and included in WP, she should at least be merged into Peter Phillips PenulisHantu (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably merge. A cursory reference in Peter Phillips' article should be sufficient. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create a (new) redirect to Peter Phillips. All of the content in this article that would be relevant to the article on Peter Phillips is already in the latter article. What remains is the personal family history of Autumn Phillips, who has always been a private figure who has never carried out public activities (unlike wives of US presidents). In fact, one could argue that there should never have been an article about her. She is a classic WP:BLP1E, that one event being married to a peripheral member of the British royal family whose own notability is borderline. Risker (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her marriage to Peter Phillips does not make her notable automatically, but the coverage she has received does. Is anyone disputing that she has has received significant coverage in reliable sources? I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies here, the coverage relates to a number of different events: her wedding, the birth of her kids, the conversion from Catholicism and her divorce. She has made several public interviews, so she is not exactly avoiding public life. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She also seems to have regularly participated in public events as a member of the royal family ([1], [2]), so WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE doesn't convince me. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Pax:Vobiscum. The Daily Mail is not considered an acceptable source for establishing notability or as references for BLPs. Risker (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying they should, I was merely pointing out that she has been regularly been participating in public events. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then please find examples of her regularly participating in events as published in acceptable reference sources. What you've posted there isn't valid for the purposes of this discussion. Risker (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating two different things. (1) She has received coverage in reliable sources as shown by the references already in the article, unless of course you don't think the Daily Telegraph counts as reliable. (2) She has participated in public events as a member of the royal family as shown by the Daily Mail articles. Here are other articles showing her participating in public events: [3][4][5]. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views are split roughly evenly between keep, merge and delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I explicitly said that those links were simply to prove that she participates in public events as a member of the royal family, making WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE irrelevant to this discussion. What do you think about all the sources already in the article, would you say they constitute a significant coverage or not? Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now added a few new sources to the article and replaced some questionable ones. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and/or Merge to Peter Phillips: Not notable for a stand alone article per Nom, that notability is not inherited, and other reasoning: See "Comments". Otr500 (talk)
Comments: User Pax:Vobiscum, that stated "...the coverage relates to a number of different events: "her wedding" (to Peter Phillips), "the birth of her kids" (from the marriage to Peter Phillips), "the conversion from Catholicism and her divorce" (related to Peter Phillips). She has made several public interviews, so she is not exactly avoiding public life.". The last sentence is covered extensively in Who is a low-profile individual?. Any notability of the subject is directly related to her marriage to Peter Phillips. "Low-profile" "is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event.". Neither are "titled", nor their children, they are not "working royals", and that does give credibility to WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE.
The opening sentence of the article states: "...is the wife of Peter Phillips...". The only thing likely to change in the future would be, "is the ex-wife of Peter Phillips". Any "appearances" with Peter, the grandson of the Queen, even if involving "public functions" the Queen is attending, would normally be as the wife of Peter in non-self-promotional functions.
The entire lead provides zero notability of the subject not connected with Peter Phillips. The entire article with 29 references provides no independent notability, certainly not in the lead or "Early life" sections, and the bulk of the article is found in the "Marriage to Peter Phillips" and "Children" sections. To fans of "including everything in the world on Wikipedia" (encyclopedic or possibly not) that is likely to be hard to understand. There are numerous sources that state the subject and her husband are considered "low-keyed" or maintaining a "low profile". It could be argued: "But they reportedly were interviewed and photographed by Hello! magazine, for an apparent fee of £500,000.": Please see Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual#Behavior pattern and activity level.
Sources need to "support a claim of notability" over just supporting content. When notability is called into question we cannot just assert there is notability. There are what looks like 9 links to The Daily Telegraph (counts as one towards notability), along with around 20 other references, and we still have an article captioned as "the wife of Peter Phillips". Regardless of any rhetoric, defending of the article, or The Daily Telegraph, that is what is presented, but may soon be the above mentioned "ex-wife of Peter Phillips".
I joined Wikipedia because I liked the idea of sharing knowledge freely with the world so I am not a fan of the The Daily Telegraph. Partly because they have already received compensation for what they want us to pay for again, but also because they do print tabloid type money making news stories. Unless consensus was to change the reliability of The Daily Telegraph is not questioned. That is not the point. A misconception is that several references do not automatically confer notability. This can be seen by a more common trend that comments such as "Keep, the article has plenty of reliable sources", are not generally counted as valid.
I would be so open to constructive comments providing independent notability (since I could not find any) that could be added to the lead (and referenced in the body), not related to Peter Phillips, the marriage or children, or the crown. I don't see that it exists. Without that, we are just supporting the creation of a pseudo biography that includes If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all. This can be seen as an easy rebuttal of a presumption of notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously she is known because of her association with the British royal family. Is anyone associated with the Royal family notable? Absolutely not. How do we determine which are notable and which aren't? We see if there is significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:NOTINHERITED actually makes this exact point: "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Autumn_Phillips&oldid=945055371"